Exploratory Strategies in Haptic Softness Discrimination Are Tuned to Achieve High Levels of Task Performance

Haptic perception essentially depends on the executed exploratory movements. It has been speculated that spontaneously executed movements are optimized for the computation of associated haptic properties. We investigated to what extent people strategically execute movements that are tuned for softness discrimination of objects with deformable surfaces. In Experiment 1, we investigated how movement parameters depend on expected stimulus compliance. In a discrimination task, we measured exploratory forces for less compliant (hard) stimuli and for more compliant (soft) stimuli. In Experiment 2, we investigated whether exploratory force also depends on the expected compliance difference between the two stimuli. The results indicate that participants apply higher forces when expecting harder objects as compared to softer objects, and they apply higher forces for smaller compliance differences than for larger ones. Experiment 3 examined how applied force influences differential sensitivity for softness as assessed by just noticeable differences (JNDs). For soft stimuli, JNDs did not depend on force. For hard stimuli, JNDs were “worse” (higher) if participants applied less force than they use naturally. We conclude that applying high force is a robust strategy to obtain high differential sensitivity, and that participants used this strategy if it was required for successful discrimination performance.

[1]  Astrid M L Kappers,et al.  Frequency discrimination between and within line gratings by dynamic touch , 2002, Perception & psychophysics.

[2]  Michael A Riley,et al.  Perceptual Behavior: Recurrence Analysis of a Haptic Exploratory Procedure , 2002, Perception.

[3]  Roger Adams,et al.  Hand contact area, force applied and early non-linear stiffness (toe) in a manual stiffness discrimination task , 1998 .

[4]  M. Srinivasan,et al.  Tactual discrimination of softness. , 1995, Journal of neurophysiology.

[5]  Michael Goldfarb,et al.  The effect of force saturation on the haptic perception of detail , 2002 .

[6]  R. Klatzky,et al.  Hand movements: A window into haptic object recognition , 1987, Cognitive Psychology.

[7]  Astrid M. L. Kappers,et al.  Kinaesthetic and Cutaneous Contributions to the Perception of Compressibility , 2008, EuroHaptics.

[8]  Hong Z. Tan,et al.  Manual Resolution Of Compliance When Work And Force Cues Are Minimized , 1993 .

[9]  Ehud Ahissar,et al.  Importance of Temporal Cues for Tactile Spatial- Frequency Discrimination , 2001, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[10]  C. Elaine Chapman,et al.  Haptic shape discrimination in humans: insight into haptic frames of reference , 2005, Experimental Brain Research.

[11]  G. Studebaker A "rationalized" arcsine transform. , 1985, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[12]  F A Wichmann,et al.  Ning for Helpful Comments and Suggestions. This Paper Benefited Con- Siderably from Conscientious Peer Review, and We Thank Our Reviewers the Psychometric Function: I. Fitting, Sampling, and Goodness of Fit , 2001 .

[13]  Antonio Bicchi,et al.  The role of contact area spread rate in haptic discrimination of softness , 1999, Proceedings 1999 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (Cat. No.99CH36288C).

[14]  Lukas Kaim,et al.  Exploratory Movement Parameters Vary with Stimulus Stiffness , 2008, EuroHaptics.

[15]  G. Gescheider Psychophysics: The Fundamentals , 1997 .

[16]  Antonio Bicchi,et al.  Tactile Flow and Haptic Discrimination of Softness , 2005, Multi-point Interaction with Real and Virtual Objects.

[17]  R. Klatzky,et al.  Haptic integration of object properties: texture, hardness, and planar contour. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.